Safety of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention via the radial versus femoral route in patients on uninterrupted oral anticoagulation with warfarin

Perioperative Management of Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Therapy

Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Drug ManagementManagement of patients on an anticoagulant or antiplatelet drug who require surgery or an invasive procedure is a common clinical problem. Douketis and Spyropoulos provide an evidence-based but practical approach to managing anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs in the perioperative setting.

Safety of Continuing Anticoagulation Prior to Cardiac Catheterization in Pediatric Patients: A Los Angeles Center Experience

This is the first report specifically describing outcomes of pediatric patients who underwent cardiac catheterization while on uninterrupted anticoagulation. One hundred forty-four cardiac catheterizations were identified that met inclusion criteria at our institution from 11/2014 to 10/2019. The median age and weight of the patients were 6.3 [0.01-20.9] years and 19.3 [2.1-172.5] kg, respectively. Seventy-eight (54%) catheterizations involved inpatients. The most common cardiac diagnoses among the cohort were single ventricle (n = 41), conotruncal defects (n = 37), and structurally normal heart (n = 16). The most common indications for anticoagulation were arterial/venous thrombus (n = 45), Fontan physiology (n = 32), and mechanical valve thrombus prophylaxis (n = 27). The anticoagulation medications used were warfarin (n = 57), heparin (n = 52), enoxaparin (n = 25), fondaparinux (n = 5), rivaroxaban (n = 2), and both heparin and warfarin (n = 3). Interventions were performed in 96 cases (67%). The median length of the procedure was 122.5 [15-760] minutes, and the median time to achieve hemostasis was 18.0 [range: 5-76, IQR: 13-25] minutes. Adverse events were present in 11 cases (7.6%), and of those only 2 cases (1.4%) were bleeding-related complications. Our single-center data suggest that performing cardiac catheterization on pediatric patients while on uninterrupted anticoagulation is safe and does not substantially increase the risk of bleeding complications based on a cohort of patients that varied in age, size, diagnosis, medical complexity, and type of intervention performed. Patients on warfarin therapy for a mechanical valve are most likely to benefit from this practice, as the ability to continue warfarin therapy avoids the need for bridging and other interruption-related complications.

Antithrombotic Management for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Comprehensive protection of a patient with atrial fibrillation (AF) should not only reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism, but also reduce the risk coronary events and ensure high adherence to treatment. In accordance with consensus document issued by the European Heart Rhythm Association, European Society of Cardiology, European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, as well as with other recent Russian Society of Cardiology Guidelines, the management of antithrombotic therapy of patients with AF undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) requires that multiple and interconnected issues. The review article addresses questions about duration of initial triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT), selection of P2Y12 inhibitor, choice of oral anticoagulant to be combined with antiplatelet therapy, intensity of oral anticoagulation throughout combination therapy, and choice of oral anticoagulant for indefinite therapy. In general, it is recommended to refuse the routine use of TAT for most patients. Accordingly, for patients who need both anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy, it is strongly recommended that the default strategy after recent PCI is a double antithrombotic therapy consisting of an anticoagulant and one antiplatelet, preferably from the group of P2Y12 inhibitors. When conducting combined antithrombotic therapy, preference should be given to clopidogrel compared to other, more powerful P2Y12 inhibitors and direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) instead of vitamin K antagonists. The primary choice of DOAC in patients with AF who have undergone PCI should be carried out taking into account such factors as individual risk of stroke and bleeding, adherence to treatment, concomitant diseases, pharmacological characteristics and evidence base of a specific DOAC, taking other medications, etc. The pharmacokinetic features of rivaroxaban, which create the possibility of its single administration, the evidence base for reducing coronary risks in various variants of the course of coronary heart disease, determines the special positions of the drug for the comprehensive protection of patients with AF after PCI.

Evidence-Based Practices in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiac catheterization procedures have rapidly evolved and expanded in scope and techniques over the past few decades. However, although some practices have emerged based on evidence, many traditions have persisted based on beliefs and theoretical concerns. The aim of this review is to highlight common preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure catheterization laboratory practices where evidence has accumulated over the past few decades to support or discount traditionally held practices.

SCAI expert consensus update on best practices in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: This statement was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) in April 2021

The current document commissioned by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) and endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and Heart Rhythm Society represents a comprehensive update to the 2012 and 2016 consensus documents on patient-centered best practices in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Comprising updates to staffing and credentialing, as well as evidence-based updates to the pre-, intra-, and post-procedural logistics, clinical standards and patient flow, the document also includes an expanded section on CCL governance, administration, and approach to quality metrics. This update also acknowledges the collaboration with various specialties, including discussion of the heart team approach to management, and working with electrophysiology colleagues in particular. It is hoped that this document will be utilized by hospitals, health systems, as well as regulatory bodies involved in assuring and maintaining quality, safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of patient throughput in this high volume area.

Post-the SAFARI STEMI study: Is there still a debate on radial vs. femoral access in STEMI?

Despite the seminal trials on radial versus femoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) showing reduced bleeding, major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality; these outcomes were attributed by some to low usage of bivalirudin and an unnecessarily higher dose of Heparin, combined with high usage of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, as well as to the use of larger bore catheters in the femoral groups. To prove the point, a study comparing TF with TR access was mooted( Lee et al., 2013) 3; with bivalirudin instead of heparin, preferably with use of potent oral anti-platelets instead of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors; and femoral vascular closure devices, ostensibly, to assess outcomes based on ‘access-site alone’. With this intent, the SAFARI STEMI study was designed. In this article we discuss some of the major short-comings of this trial which raise significant questions on its results.

Choices in antithrombotic management for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: questions (and answers) in chronological sequence

In accordance with the 2018 joint consensus document issued by the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group on Thrombosis, European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), and European Association of Acute Cardiac Care (ACCA), and endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), Latin America Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), and Cardiac Arrhythmia Society of Southern Africa (CASSA), as well as with other recent ESC Guidelines, the management of antithrombotic therapy of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention requires that multiple and interconnected issues, including, duration of initial triple antithrombotic therapy, selection of P2Y12 inhibitor, choice of oral anticoagulant to be combined with antiplatelet therapy, intensity of oral anticoagulation throughout combination therapy, and choice of oral anticoagulant for indefinite therapy, are addressed. To assist the responsible physician in clinical decision making, a series of practical questions are proposed and discussed in the chronological sequence they should likely be answered.

RadialFirst in CHIP and Cardiogenic Shock

This article highlights the advantages and disadvantages of transradial arterial (TRA) access for a variety of presentations including acute coronary syndromes; cardiogenic shock; unprotected left main, heavily calcified coronaries; bifurcations; and chronic total occlusions. It includes techniques for overcoming challenges of using TRA access, including spasm and the need for larger bore guides. In addition, the authors review the use of ultrasound for access, percutaneous hemodynamic support via axillary approach, and tips and tricks to performing right heart catheterizations from the antecubital vein.

Accessing the Wrist: From Data to Tips and Tricks

Over the past 2 decades, radial artery access has increasingly become the standard approach for coronary angiography and intervention. Compared with femoral arteries, transradial access is associated with better hemostasis. Transradial access has increased patient preference, facilitates early ambulation, and is cost-effective. An important limitation of transradial access is access site failure, and it carries a crossover rate of 3% to 7% in randomized prospective trials comparing radial with femoral artery access among experienced operators. Crossover rates for failed primary radial artery access can be reduced with ultrasonography guidance and increased familiarity with alternative access sites in the wrist.

An Update on Radial Artery Access and Best Practices for Transradial Coronary Angiography and Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Transradial artery access for percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with lower bleeding and vascular complications than transfemoral artery access, especially in patients with acute coronary syndromes. A growing body of evidence supports adoption of transradial artery access to improve acute coronary syndrome-related outcomes, to improve healthcare quality, and to reduce cost. The purpose of this scientific statement is to propose and support a "radial-first" strategy in the United States for patients with acute coronary syndromes. This document also provides an update to previously published statements on transradial artery access technique and best practices, particularly as they relate to the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes.

Radial Access for Lower Extremity Peripheral Arterial Interventions: Do We Have the Tools?

The benefits of transradial arterial access (TRA) versus transfemoral arterial access (TFA) have been extensively described in the literature; however, TFA remains the predominant access site choice in the management of peripheral arterial disease (PAD). There are still significant unmet needs for operators wishing to provide the same effective interventions for lower extremity PAD via TRA as with TFA. This article provides an up-to-date review of the literature and devices currently available for operators wishing to treat lower extremity PAD via TRA and the limitations they may face.

Hepatic radioembolization from transradial access: initial experience and comparison to transfemoral access

PURPOSE

Despite the growing evidence in the cardiology literature that transradial approach has substantial benefits over transfemoral access, this technique is rarely used during interventions in the systemic circulation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of transradial approach for hepatic radioembolization and to compare it with transfemoral approach.

METHODS

Sixty-four hepatic radioembolizations performed in 50 patients were included in the study. Thirty-three procedures were performed via radial access in 27 patients, and 31 procedures were performed via femoral access in 23 patients.

RESULTS

There was 100% technical success in performing hepatic radioembolization in both groups. The majority (97%) of the patients who underwent transradial radioembolization reported preference for radial artery access. The fluoroscopy time was significantly longer (9.45±5.09 min vs. 5.72±3.67 min, P < 0.01) and the radiation dose was significantly higher (597.8±585.2 mGy vs. 302.8±208.3 mGy, P < 0.01) in the radial group compared with the femoral group. The direct cost savings using radial access versus femoral access is approximately $100/procedure. In addition, there was a one hour (50%) shorter postprocedural stay for patients who underwent the transradial procedure.

CONCLUSION

Transradial access is feasible for hepatic radioembolization. The transradial approach is cheaper and offers improved patient comfort. However, it is technically challenging, with longer fluoroscopy times and higher radiation doses. Transradial approach should be considered as a primary choice in patients with low platelet count and/or morbid obesity. Transradial access should be in the procedural repertoire of every interventional radiologist.

Predictors of common femoral artery access site complications in patients on oral anticoagulants and undergoing a coronary procedure

Background

It is unclear whether patients on oral anticoagulants (OAC) undergoing a procedure using common femoral artery access have higher adverse events when compared to patients who are not anticoagulated at the time of the procedure.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed data from consecutive patients who underwent a cardiac procedure at a tertiary medical center. Patients were considered (group A) fully or partially anticoagulated if they had an international normalized ratio (INR) ≥1.6 on the day of the procedure or were on warfarin or new OAC within 48 h and 24 h of the procedure, respectively. The nonanticoagulated group (group B) had an INR <1.6 or had stopped their warfarin and new OAC >48 h and >24 h preprocedure, respectively. The index primary end point of the study was defined as the composite end point of major bleeding, vascular complications, or cardiovascular-related death during index hospitalization. The 30-day primary end point was defined as the occurrence of the index primary end point and up to 30 days postprocedure.

Results

A total of 779 patients were included in this study. Of these patients, 27 (3.5%) patients were in group A. The index primary end point was met in 11/779 (1.4%) patients. The 30-day primary composite end point was met in 18/779 (2.3%) patients. There was no difference in the primary end point at index between group A (1/27 [3.7%]) and group B (10/752 [1.3%]; P=0.3155) and no difference in the 30-day primary composite end point between group A (2/27 [7.4%]) and group B (16/752 [2.1%]; P=0.1313). Multivariable analysis showed that a low creatinine clearance (odds ratio [OR] =0.56; P=0.0200) and underweight patients (<60 kg; OR =3.94; P=0.0300) were independent predictors of the 30-day primary composite end point but not oral anticoagulation (P=0.1500).

Conclusion

Patients on OAC did not have higher 30-day major adverse events than those who were not anticoagulated at index procedure.

Management of the patient with an acute coronary syndrome using oral anticoagulation

A significant number of patients with atrial fibrillation, treated with oral anticoagulants, present with an acute coronary syndrome. Many of these patients have an indication for coronary angiography. The introduction of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and the novel P2Y12 inhibitors has generated new uncertainty about the optimal treatment regimen, whether triple or dual therapy should be given and which is the most beneficial P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel, ticagrelor, prasugrel). In this article, we will summarise the practical advice on the management of acute coronary syndrome patients requiring oral anticoagulants following the recent consensus document of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group on Thrombosis in association with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and ESC guidelines.